Here we go again. The latest edition of the Maui Time newspaper has a cover story on the allegedly Mesoamerican obsidian spear point found in a national park on the island of Maui. The new details provided by the newspaper are meant to make us more confident in the connection between the spear point and Mexico, but instead the reporting raises still more doubts about the authenticity of the artifact—and from an unexpected source, the archaeologist America Unearthed featured in its episode on the spear point. The newspaper also offered us the largest photograph yet published of the spearhead, which appears more than ever like a modern fake, sharing few if any characteristics with genuine pre-Columbian Mexican lithics.

Archaeologist Dr. Janet Six of the University of Hawaii’s Maui College examined the green-gold obsidian spear point in the winter of 2010-2011 after Brian Axtell and Trevor Carter, its discoverers, contacted an archaeologist who in turn contacted her, and she immediately recognized that the spear point was not native to the Hawaiian Islands. “Someone put it there,” she told Maui Time. The obsidian from which it was made is from Pachuca in Mexico. Six offered several possible explanations, one of which we must dismiss because it is unsupported by archaeology. That possibility is her suggestion that Native Hawaiians picked up the spear point when visiting South America just before the time of Columbus. Mexican obsidian from Pachuca was the subject of long-distance trade, but to my knowledge this was limited to Mexico and did not extend south to the areas of the Inca Empire where the Polynesians landed. South Americans had their own sources of obsidian and did not need Mexican obsidian.

“Academics agree that Polynesians went to Mesoamerica,” Six told the Maui Time, but this is untrue. Academics agree Polynesians reached South America, not Mesoamerica, and the two are not interchangeable. There is no evidence of Polynesian contact in Mesoamerica. Her other suggestions are much more likely:

She said it was possible Axtell and Carter put it there, but added that given her discussions with them, and the fact that they never seem to have tried to get publicity from the spearpoint or sell it, she believed they were being honest about how they found it. She also said it was possible that a hippie put it into the park in the 1980s during a “harmonic convergence.”

The last idea was a new one on me. I knew that there had been a Harmonic Convergence, but I wasn’t aware that the global gatherings extended to Hawaii. This explains everything. In researching records and reports from the August 1987 “Harmonic Convergence,” I discovered that thousands of New Age people, including those who had visited “spiritual” sites in Mexico, traveled to the Haleakala Crater in Maui—where the spear point was later found—for Harmonic Convergence ceremonies. They held a “sunrise ceremony” at the crater on August 17. Russell Chandler reported this fact in Understanding the New Age in 1993, and the New Yorker reported the same in 1988. According to the New Age beliefs of the time, pyramid centers in Egypt and Mexico were considered important sites for earth energy and UFO activity. Artifacts (including tourist trinkets made from power stones like obsidian), rocks, and other detritus from those areas were important talismans that many New Agers used to spread harmony to other earth energy centers, such as Haleakala Crater. In fact, the Harmonic Convergence was developed in part by Jose Argüelles, who used the run-up to the Convergence to promote the idea that the Maya calendar would expire in 2012. He specifically linked the Harmonic Convergence to Mesoamerica and encouraged his followers to see Mesoamerica and Mayan mysteries as the focal point for the New Age. I think this about solves the mystery. The newspaper then explains some of the additional conspiracy claims with details that help flesh out what happened. You can read this yourself, but here are the highlights:

The two men who found the spearhead called the National Park Service just once. Their only other effort to investigate the artefact was to show it to Janet Six.

Six showed the spearhead to one of her classes, and a student contacted America Unearthed.

The National Park Service became aware of the spearhead when America Unearthed tried to get a permit to film. The Park Service rejected the request because the two men had violated park rules in illegally removing the artefact and the Park Service did not want to encourage more illegal relic hunting.

Contrary to claims made on America Unearthed and in other media, Brian Axtell now says he only decided to return to the artifact after the Park Service explained it had been removed illegally, during pre-production on America Unearthed. This occurred in October 2013, four years after the discovery. He did not make efforts to return the artifact before then.

Axtell describes a bizarre scene where Park Service officials photographed the spearhead in his presence in October and then told him that it had been illegally removed and would remain with them. Axtell then describes assaulting the Park Service officer by physically removing the spearhead from her hand because she refused to stage a handover ceremony on camera for America Unearthed.

The Park Service refuses to discuss the incident beyond a press release that indicates that they are testing the spear point and conducting a criminal investigation into Axtell and Carter for illegally removing an artifact from the Haleakala. America Unearthed planned to use an expensive test to determine the age of the spear point but were unable to do so because of the Park Service’s seizure of the spear point. The “seizure” of the spearhead occurred in a Starbucks during a meeting arranged by producers of America Unearthed. The “conspiracy” against the show was entirely of the production team’s own making. Had they filmed and tested the spear point first, before arranging a meeting with the Park Service, there would have been no conspiracy. But it also might have made them party to the violation of federal law. Here’s the key detail—producers hid the seizure from Wolteron purpose for several days in order to create drama. “I didn’t like keeping it a secret from the guy,” Trevor Carter said. The men indicated that it took four takes to film the scene where they informed Wolter that the Park Service kept the spear point because the production team had to stop repeatedly to calm him down. He had become too angry to continue, cursing and shouting about conspiracies. Holy crap. The producers hide facts from Scott Wolter! They knew far ahead of time what had happened, and they lied to him about it!

Great job researching this Jason. I am glad to hear Wolter was kept in the dark about this. This reminds me of the FINDING BIGFOOT incident when the producers edited one of the first shows to show that the horse in a field was seen by the cast as a strange manlike object.

It goes to show how drama and controversy are more important that the truth in shows like this. I wonder if Wolter will address this on his blog.

Reply

Coridan

3/7/2014 04:32:55 am

Wouldn't it only be illegal to remove it if it is an actual artifact?

Reply

Dan

3/7/2014 05:01:34 am

Harmonic Convergence!
Thanks so much for your research on this, Jason.
It feels very good to have been completely right about the "spearhead".

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/7/2014 05:46:22 am

Franz Kafka would be proud …

It turns out that the (purported) Mexican-Hawaiian artifact WAS examined by a bona fide trained professional archaeologist, Prof. Dr. Janet Six of The University of Hawaii … and SHE suggested that it originated in Mexico and was brought to Hawaii by Polynesian explorers … (Oh, sure … !!! What does SHE know about any of this stuff … ???)

But it gets BETTER yet …

The (purported) Mexican-Hawaiian artifact flat-out COULDN'T be genuine, because there is NO EVIDENCE of cultural contact between pre-Columbian cultures of Hawaii and Mesoamerica … (UNLESS, of course the artifact IS genuine, in which case it IS evidence of that contact, yes … ???)

'Round-and-'round in the circle-game … See …

It CAN'T be genuine, because by DEFINITION there was NO cultural contact between those peoples back then, so there WAS none, and we know this to be the case because there is NO EVIDENCE, so when evidence DOES turn up, it MUST BE FAKE, by definition ...

Reply

Coridan

3/7/2014 05:52:04 am

Yes, scientists and academics taie in the whole of all evidence to reach a consensus. Sometimes there are dissenters. Sometimes the dissenters are proven right, other times there is better evidence found later. None of this is news Rev.

Dr. Six offered no opinion on the stone's age; instead, she offered three possibilities about how it came to the park. I reject one because Six has conflated Mesoamerica and South America. Some people make mistakes. Her suggestion about the Harmonic Convergence doesn't just match records about activity in the volcanic crater but also matches the 1987 event's Maya flavor. Given that the photograph shows what appears to be a modern obsidian imitation spear head rather than a characteristically Mesoamerican blade, this would seem to be the best explanation. It's also one of Six's own explanations. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of her analysis you get to accept if you intend to use her as evidence.

Reply

RLewis

3/7/2014 06:57:43 am

The hippie convention also helps explain the part about the arrowhead giving off some cool vibrations, man.

J.A.D

3/7/2014 09:20:05 am

Just when i whuz about to lay odds in Vegas that it was Pre-Clovis
and proof of MU ruling the oceans 15,ooo years ago i learn of these
harmonic hippies converging on the islands. shades of McGarrett!!!
the BIG FIVE OHHH!!!!! dangggiiittt. hipies, hippies, hippies, hippies!

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/9/2014 10:52:42 am

Indeed for sure …

Prof. Dr. Six has taken a MEASURED and CAREFUL stance re: the (purported) Hawaiian-Mexican point … That is exactly MY point, you see ...

Janet Six

7/11/2014 08:02:39 pm

Take a look at the Olmec heads...

Matt Mc

3/7/2014 06:13:37 am

I guess not comment about how the show used this event to create drama to the point of lying to its host.

It goes to prove that nothing on this show should be considered credible or in anyway representative of the truth.

It after all a TV show that has demostrated that it will do anything to gain better ratings in order to sell advertising.

Sad part is the only thing that is hurt by the shows distortion of the facts is Wolter, as time goes on and more and more of examples of the shows inherent dishonest and fast and loose approach of the facts Wolter's professional reputation will suffer. Since he is someone who has stated many times that he testifies in court this could affect his reputation as a expert witness. I guess he won't look at it that way since he seems to enjoy the attention.

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/7/2014 06:36:43 am

Regarding your comment about Prof. Janet Six (Oh, sure … !!! What does SHE know about any of this stuff … ???). I think she knows a fair amount if you read her profile on LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/janet6

Dr. Six is of course correct that the artifact originated in Mexico. The question is when, and 2 out of her 3 possibilities involve it showing up in the past 30 years.

Rev Gil Photsch

3/7/2014 09:14:03 am

Lighten up.....

Its just a TV show.....

Reply

David Peter

3/9/2014 03:36:42 am

Rev, it is a television shop that tries to pass off bogus information as fact, shows like thing are a big part of the dumbing down of America. So that does not make these pseudo science, fact history shows harmless.

David Peter

3/9/2014 03:38:15 am

My first comment should read television show not television shop.

Janet Six

7/11/2014 08:01:22 pm

Take a look at the Olmec heads.

Reply

Laakea

2/14/2018 09:01:56 am

You realize that polynesians landed on Easter Island almost 200 yes ago right?

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/7/2014 06:07:54 am

I guess Wolter has not caught up with the Maui Time article yet. His blog still mentions “hiker's attempts to contact authorities,” (note the plural) and the “sting operation to get the obsidian point back.” As for his description of him and his colleague rushing and fighting over who would grab the mammoth tooth (Swamp Mammoth episode) I don’t consider that a professional method of recovering an ancient artefact!! His whole blog reads like a record of how Wolter enjoys having fun on his sponsor funded trips.

Reply

J.A.D

3/7/2014 09:23:06 am

i'm going to cut him some slack. he has jet lag. he was in Europe
filming the upcoming season's episodes so he may have missed the
further wrinkle to the arrowhead controversy. dang hippies indeed.

Reply

RLewis

3/7/2014 06:29:57 am

FYI - I don't think the held the secret from SW for several weeks, just a few days - still seems kind of bush league.

I'm not sure how to read the timeline. It sounds like they said that the meeting took place at least a week before America Unearthed was supposed to start filming, so I guess it would have been at least one week. But if they had been working to arrange the meeting with the Park Service, they weren't telling him about that part either and those negotiations started several weeks earlier.

Reply

Clint Knapp

3/7/2014 07:46:14 am

Now I suppose the question is; If you're Scott Wolter, do you do what you can to end the toxic relationship of lies, misinformation and yellow submarines? Do you forgive and forget because the gravy train is just revving up, or move on to some other corner of fringe tomfoolery to save some credibility?

Interesting discovery. It'll be an interest story to watch.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/7/2014 09:04:58 am

My point stands …

(Unlike the scoffers posting in this blog spot, who HAVEN'T seen the point in person) Prof. Dr. Six DIDN'T just *roll*her*eyes* and pronounce it an obvious "fake" ...

Reply

J.A.D

3/7/2014 09:29:57 am

Even though it could have been knapped at any point over the past
50,ooo years on any Pacific island or any coastal area of Asia, N.A
and S.A --- partially because the obsidian is plentiful --- and its age
is an open question, a "HARMONIC CONVERGENCE" of unwash'd
hippie~dom almost four decades ago gives this 50/50 odds that this
is how it got to the islands! think jumbo jet + air travel, not boats!!!!

Reply

lil ole moi

3/7/2014 09:33:12 am

ODDS ARE THIS HAS A "BURNING MAN" FESTIVAL LINK!

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/7/2014 09:49:21 am

I suppose that is how the "sweet potato" got to Hawaii, too ...

J.A.D

3/7/2014 02:56:35 pm

if the color of the stone was less greenish--- if it was specific and
rare then i'd humour that it went by sea along with sweet potatoes.
hippies can often half worship volcano gods and goddesses even if
they get confused. its either jet age or more ancient, 50/50 odds!!!

Matt Mc

3/8/2014 02:52:31 am

Not 50/50 odds based on Dr. Six's possible conclusions but rather since 2 out of 3 of them say the spearhead is a fake. The odds based on the only scientist to exam the object would be more like 66% percent that it is a fake,

So based on what little we know at this point it would be fair to say that Dr. SIx is claiming that the chance of the object being real is 33% and the chances of the object of being fake is 66%.

Now when you add the fact that Dr. Six made the mistake of saying the Coastal Mexico is part of MesoAmerica (which is considered the regions of Central Mexico to Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Northern Parts Costa Rica) which is incorrect, could just show that her studies have not included the cultures of Mexico and Central America but that also would call question to her findings that the spearhead could be ancient. Either way according to her limited findings and without any testing done. Dr. Six has sided with the conclusion that the chances of the spearhead being a fake are larger than it being real. Her conclusions however should not be accepted as the final say in the determining the authenticity since no real testing was done and all her conclusions are in fact hypothesis.

Colin Hunt

3/7/2014 11:01:55 pm

Rev. To quote you - Lighten up..... Its just a TV show.....
Why is it you launch so many serious comments but every time you are caught out with your comments, even slightly, you always make the same remarks, such as the above.
If you keep telling everyone else not to take the show too seriously, then why do you keep taking it, and this blog, so seriously.
I think we all recognize your defensive posture by now so maybe its time to stop it. I think I may throw up the next time I see you get-out post, i.e. Lighten up..... Its just a TV show.....

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 02:35:47 am

Rev. Sweet potato? Keep you mind open, unlike closed mind theorists. Read http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A1984421. If you want to argue with the academics who wrote that article then take it up with them and not insert it as a diversionary tactic in Jasons blog.

Only Me

3/7/2014 10:22:28 am

Oh. My. God.

After your latest contortion of facts, I'm seriously questioning your judgment, Phil. You go on and on about no one having laid eyes on the spearhead, knowing damn well that it's not possible to do so, yet you defy reason and logic by once again kicking your brain into anti-academic mode. *You* haven't seen the spearhead either, but it hasn't stopped you from crowing to anyone who will listen that it just has to, possibly, be from Mesoamerica, facts be damned.

It seems that the truth is anathema to you. I thought, no, believed that you would be offended, if not royally pissed, at how AU's production team played Scott for a fool. I see now, that you will never accept anything factual from those you deem scoffers or skeptics, simply because of the source.

I'll pray for you, Phil. You are in dire need of it.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/7/2014 10:34:31 am

(Reportedly) Prof. Dr. Janet Six -- a trained experienced Hawaiian archaeologist -- DID examine the (purported Mexican-Hawaiian) artifact and did NOT flatly denounce it as an obvious "fake" … Did she … ???

I sent a note to Dr. Six to ask if she'd be willing to share her observations and evaluation criteria. I'll let you know when or if she chooses to respond.

Colin Hunt

3/7/2014 11:28:00 pm

Rev. So what’s your point? As a trained experienced Hawaiian archaeologist, as you said, Prof. Dr. Six responsibly suggested various scenarios to be considered and did not jump to a single conclusion, which some show hosts do without thoroughly considering various alternative theories and thoroughly examining them.
We can all read, and if on this blog then probably all reasonably intelligent, and know what she said so what point are you trying to make?
P.S. The continued insertion of capitals does NOT (hehe) impress anyone and cannot push people to accept or agree with your capitalised point, in fact, probably the reverse.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/8/2014 02:40:33 am

Colin Hunt --

My point is … what it is …

Prof. Dr. Janet Six -- a trained and experienced archaeologist -- upon seeing the point, examining it, holding it -- did NOT pronounce it an obvious "fake" …

I ... DON'T ... KNOW ... if it was lost, planted, faked, or whatever …

I DO find it … revealing … that among some hidebound folks (who HAVEN'T seen it, examined it, held it), it gets airily flatly *dismissed* as an obvious hoax …

I dunno ...

Reid

3/7/2014 10:52:30 am

I apologise for coming late to the party, but would someone please explain how we know for certain that the obsidian is from Mexico? Thank you.

Green-gold obsidian is found in only one place, Pachuca in Mexico, and Dr. Janet Six did an analysis of the spear head matching its composition to the obsidian deposit in Pachuca.

Reply

Reid

3/7/2014 11:01:10 am

Thanks!

CHV

3/7/2014 12:03:37 pm

If the producers of AU did, in fact, lie to Wolter, what does that say about his ability to screen out historical bullshit - which is frankly his stock in trade? He thrives on it.

Reply

charlie

3/7/2014 12:05:07 pm

Oh dear. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you. The very idea that the production team chose to keep our hero Scott "in the dark" about the events to come is absolutely shocking to me.
OK, enough of my poor attempt at being sarcastic. No real surprise actually. But, it IS curious.

Reply

Mark E.

3/7/2014 01:37:23 pm

Carter and Axtell went off-trail in a protected wilderness area, removed an artifact from the park, cleaned the artifact with alcohol (making dating more difficult), had a confrontation with government officials, and then agree to mislead Wolter. I'm having a hard time finding much sympathy for their plight.

Reply

Will

3/7/2014 03:51:08 pm

You headline is, in the first instance disingenuous, and in the second, somewhat ironic. It creates a sensational splashy blog post to write "Producers Lied to Scott Wolter about Spear Point to Create Drama", while at the same time re-interprting the facts to fit your bias against the show. Running with "producers lied"[!!!] you imply an untruth, and further a sinister deception - something you have at earlier times criticized the show for implying of others. In fact, withholding information is not deception - anymore than you're deceiving a friend by asking them to not unwrap a gift until you have a camera trained on them to capture the genuineness of their reaction.

Further, you wordsmith and assert that Mr. Wolter was "cursing and shouting about conspiracies." There is no indication that Wolter raised the issue of conspiracies in the Mauitime article and, I suggest, this is more of your prejudice against the host of the show. Rather, the article states that Wolter's reaction "was completely real" - like anyone understandably invested in seeing a contentious article, there is genuine, honest frustration.

Finally, I would respectfully dispute your suggestion of wrong doing when you state that "they [the producers] knew far ahead of time what had happened." You indicate here, as you have elsewhere, that a program makers foreknowledge or planning is somehow nefarious. In fact, any documentary is researched months in advance, with information gathered, viewpoints listened to and plans necessarily made. Since television IS an industry forward planning, permissions and organization is absolutely essential - just as it is in any commercial venture be it writing a manuscript, preparing a speech or starting construction on a new building.

Seriously? After all the manipulations and sensationalism of America Unearthed (which you, as apparently the Will Yates who served as writer and producer for the show, are partly responsible for), you're going to criticize me for a click-worthy headline? Is this part of the America Unearthed agenda to make criticism so boring no one reads it?

I don't need the article to tell me Scott Wolter shouted about conspiracies because that is what he said *on camera* during the episode. I simply applied to my description the filmed segment as aired, which included his references to conspiracies against him and his work. At what point did I indicate his reaction wasn't real, even on the fourth take? That was the point, wasn't it: Producers hid facts from him and asked the guests to withhold information to provoke a reaction.

Who suggested wrongdoing? It is simply a fact that the producers hid information from Wolter, who is putatively the hero of the show. It reflects the fact that Wolter is a character being manipulated for an agenda other than presenting the "truth." The problem isn't that they did research ahead of time: It's that they kept it hidden from the man supposedly representing that research on-air. It's their choice to do so, but it makes Wolter (a) look bad and (b) come across as a liar in his blog posts when he writes of things that the production team knew were untrue. I truly feel sorry for him about this. Having your own team hiding things from you while you profess to be seeking out the "truth" is sad.

I'm glad you find it to be standard practice, but that doesn't make it right. Omitting, for example, that you are a writer and producer for the show is also "withholding" information that reveals a "bias" that the audience ought also to know about.

Reply

RLewis

3/8/2014 06:44:19 am

The title of SW's blog on this episode is "America Unearthed Notes on The Spearhead Conspiracy"

Mark E.

3/7/2014 11:39:49 pm

Looting of archeological artifacts from a National Park is a felony offense. Withholding information from a felony investigation is concidered obstruction of justice. There is the possibility that what was said in that interview is evidence that could be used in a court law. Wolter should have been made aware of that before the interview occurred.

Reply

Matt Mc

3/8/2014 12:30:54 am

Will, you know what the Producers of Finding Bigfoot did when they were caught manipulating the shows hosts and re-editing a show in a manner that made the host look foolish. They publicly apologized, first in a press release and then later on the show itself in a special recap episode.

Perhaps Committee films will have the same level of professionalism as PIng Pong Productions? I doubt it.

You and the rest of your team have proven over the course of this show and the information gathered from former guest that honesty and truth gather is not you goal or intention. Which is fine but at least you all should strive for integrity. When the Finding Bigfoot guys come across as ethical and integral standouts in both treatment of the staff and treatment of the audience you really a lingering down at the bottom.

Reply

Matt Mc

3/8/2014 01:33:48 am

Will here is the quote about Wolters reaction from the article

"“He started screaming, ‘We’re going up there!’” Axtell said. “He was furious! They had to calm him down. It took them four times to film that scene because he kept cursing. The producers didn’t tell him ahead of time because they said they wanted a genuine response. Wolter is not an actor.”"

Sounds like he was cursing and implying some sort of Conspiracy.

Reply

El Snarko

3/8/2014 05:24:35 pm

I bet Rev Phil had to tell him to

Lighten up.....

Its only a TV show.....

several times!

Snarkenstein

3/8/2014 05:28:45 pm

Now, in addition to PHILibustering we have WILLibustering!

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/7/2014 11:58:41 pm

Rev.
Your continued snidely remarks are really tedious, often irrelevant to the main issue. What’s your agenda, ego, wanting to prove people wrong and score points, trying to put people down, trying to prove intellectual superiority? It’s certainly not about being humble and accepting others viewpoints as a true Christian would, let alone a true open-minded archaeological investigator.
I think you have a need, like Wolter, for notoriety and being ‘clever’ and always right, so you play the same game “birds of a feather …,” right?
You sometimes have real points but the way you try to superciliously try and prove it has long become tedious.
People will probably take your points, and you, more seriously if stop the snide point scoring way in which you present them. At present, I think most contributors treat you as a joke to be targeted.
I think we all welcome your contributions, as a leaned professional, just present them in a more mature manner.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/8/2014 02:27:56 am

Colin Hunt --

My remarks have not been "snide" but have directly addressed some interesting questions about the (purported) Mexican-Hawaiian obsidian point … (Do you not note that I ALWAYS discuss it AS "purported" … ??? How is that "snide" … ???) …

But … You obviously don't understand American citizenship … Federal Courts have CONSISTENTLY held that no American citizen is required to take a "Loyalty Oath" ...

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 02:55:16 am

Rev. You just don't get it. Your reply is expected an typical. My mistake about allegiance accepted, but you get the point. SC is working to replace the history of the USA and the repercussions of that are traumatic to the World. If his theories would ever (haha) be accepted then the USA has no legitimacy in the World and the concept of being a legitimate world power is immediately dissolved. It would lead to the destruction of the credibility of the USA.
I like your comments, but not the way you present to this blog audience which you treat as children, we all resent that as many are cleverer than you (there are always people cleverer than others).
Contribute. maturely, please, and stop defending crap no matter where it comes from, it's your reputation at stake, not the source.

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 02:03:48 am

Wolters attack on the history of the USA. He is trying to prove that Europeans are, in some way, the owners of land and the USA.
Is he a USA citizen. Did he take the Oath Of Allegiance? If he did, then he pledged to:
"I love the United States of America and the American people."
"I therefore pledge to protect the American people and the Constitution."
"I also pledge that I will not carry out a false flag attack, help others to carry out a false flag attack, and that I will do everything lawful within my power to stop others from conducting a false flag attack."
If he took this oath, protecting other cultures claims to the USA, can he not be prosecuted for denying this oath and acting against the USA? He should be investigated for un-American activities. He has provided the evidence against himself, and under earlier administrations he would have been locked up for non-American activities.
Forget Senate investigations into the Smithsonian, why not investigate Wolter?

Reply

Matt Mc

3/8/2014 02:36:40 am

Colin, not sure where you are getting the oath of allegiance unless you are referring to the ones that immegrants take when becoming citizens of the US

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"

No natural America citizen has to take this oath, and from a constitutional point of view Wolter's claims are protected by the 1st Amendment, he can (if he so pleases) be as anti-American as he wants on his show and in his papers, books, ect. As long as he is not inciting violence he is doing nothing wrong.

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 03:04:58 am

Matt. Got it and apologized to the Rev for misunderstanding but principle as an American still applies.
To Tara. What I get wrong, only quoting his blog.

I have a long history of going after Scott Wolter.It is a matter of public record.Mr wolter & myself initially exchanged words on this blog on 01/21/2013.Scott Wolter knows exactly where I stand, but to his credit,he never prevented me from challenging him on his own blog (other critics have also expressed their opinions on Wolter`s blog).
Your comment on Wolter`s blog demonstrates 1)ignorance or 2)dishonesty.

Harry

3/9/2014 01:29:40 am

I have also posted a number of comments to Wolter's blog questioning various claims he made. He does not publish them until after he has had a chance to review them, which might take up to a week. However, to his great credit, he has published virtually everyone (the single exception was a post that he was entitled to believe I had, while waiting for it to appear, superseded with another post making the same and additional points (and which he did publish); I cannot find fault with that.

My posts are polite, even when I am questioning his claims. However, I have also seen Wolter publish posts by someone using the pseudonym "Scott Wolter Lies for Money."

Therefore, I agree with Tara that Colin Hunt's gibe to Scott Wolter about only publishing positive and complimentary replies is wrong. However, it is possible that Mr. Hunt gave up waiting to see one of his prior posts get published, and assumed that it never was. If he would check back and review the comments to the blog posts where he previously published responses, I expect that he will see that Wolter did, in fact, post his comment. That is certainly true of the one Tara quotes above.

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 03:52:32 am

Tara, Where was my dishonesty? It's his blog I quoted from and do not want to interfere with your issues with him. He may accept your challenges, maybe on a personal level, well done to get through the 'wall' but he blocks all challenges on his blog other than sycophantic phrase.

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 04:11:13 am

Jason. Work this out! I sent a response to Wolters blog site, which I know would not be published, but was immediately intercepted and within a minute replied to me by Tara Jordan quoting my message to Wolter. VERY STRANGE! How did she get access to an unpublished message before it was published/deleted. How does Tara, immediately, get access to Wolters inbox before he declares he will only publish accepted responses? Something stinks here!

Paranoia.I responded (Ms Emma PeelMarch 8, 2014 at 7:16 AM) to your message (Colin HuntMarch 8, 2014 at 6:26 AM),because I am in a different time zone.
There is no nefarious cabal working against Colin Hunt.

As a matter of fact I responded an hour later (March 8, 2014 at 7:16 AM) after your initial post on March 8, 2014 at 6:26 AM.Any other asinine comment you wish to make?

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 04:41:52 am

Jason! Note.
To Tara Johnson, So you are saying, by whatever means, you are intercepting messages to WC's blog, even before they are authorized/publicized by SW! Wow!
Look out people on this blog, there are SW moles here!

Colin, your comment was published on Scott Wolter's blog at 6:24 AM, and Tara responded to it at 7:16 AM after Scott Wolter had already responded to you as well. He told you he publishes all comments, and that he condemned "other sites" (i.e. me) for refusing to accept his conclusions out of dogmatic belief. The time stamps make that clear. Therefore, I have to conclude you're wrong.

Rev. Phil is being patient, as to children. He is simply an advocate for some speculative wriggle room when addressing history, and there is nothing wrong with this. I am of the same mind in this regard.

Concerning the spear point in question, I Googled: mexican tourist obsidian spear points, and hit the image button, but I couldn't find any very similar spear points. I did happen upon an image of Jason Colavito, clicked on it, then again, and came to this very blog line!!

I did see some bird points shaped somewhat the same, but they mostly came from Oregon.

I think it is ridiculous to think that Polynesians made it to one part of the western coastline of the Americas (the entire stretch), but not to others. Any accidental landings could have come from any direction generally westward. It is an eventuality, a real happening over and over again, over thousands of years. Let's not pigeon-hole history.

Rev. Phil, keep up the good work here, which is showing that one can't always take history, evidence, etc., for granted. There must be some wriggle room in this HOTEL CALIFORNIA of straight-jacketed skeptics here. All rooms are taken.

Jason, I'm still waiting to hear your direct opinion about the feasibility of inland water-ways to not only New Gotoland (Whetstone River area, SD), but also to that very important water-way to within a few miles of Runestone Hill. For some reason, I can't get a direct answer from either you or any of your most ardent supporters over this.

I think it is because it represents the thread that can and will unravel a loose, sloppy garment here.

Rev. Phil is smart in repeating the simple message that nobody (human) knows everything, and some people are truly close-minded...and we all need to...RELAX! I haven't seen that Rev. Phil is close-minded, only that he is purposely dogged in supporting and defending a friend. And, folks, like it or not, that is pure and simple loyalty, a characteristic to be admired, in my opinion.

Nobody is right about everything. For instance, Jason was wrong about stoneholes being for blasting, and he's wrong, too, for not publicly admitting that here is an oceanic water-way to Runestone Hill. I wish he would admit to just one...even though there are others, such as via Hudson Bay, or the Gulf.

This is a scary proposition to most everyone here. Many have attacked me about this in a very recent blog-line, to no avail. You can't argue with a map!

So, we have seen that many are close-minded here, but not Rev. Phil. I invite anyone to look at a map and then at my website, ANYONE, to then say:

"Hey Gunn, I see the water-way. I looked at a map and then at the photos on your website and I can see a strong flow of water just a few miles from Runestone Hill!" (Maybe put in an extra exclamation mark or two.)

Only Me, The Other J. Dan, Matt, Tara? Who will go counter to the host in this? Who will dare? Look at a map. See the truth. Look what Jason hath done to us! Apparently, he is purposely overlooking history! This is a form of bias...otherwise known as: close-mindedness. Come clean in the water-ways, Jason.

Also, this is to Varika, the one who HATES Viking water-ways FAR INLAND in American--yet only similar to the RUS in RUSSIA.

After the water-ways are roundly acknowledged, perhaps we can move on to "not forgotten" stoneholes. (Take it two ways.)

Reply

Only Me

3/8/2014 04:37:59 am

I'd like to go another round of discussion about Old Troublemaker-related hypotheses...BUT...the last time, I unintentionally sparked another verbal brouhaha between you and Jason (for which I apologized), and I promised him I'd behave myself. Also, the subject isn't relevant to the thread, violating his comments policy.

I would suggest the Forum, but I know you're adverse to that, so, I'm sorry, I'll have to sit this out.

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 04:45:11 am

What a poor excuse for not being able to do what's right here. We don't need a bunch of excuses, just one simple acknowledge. Don't obfuscate and throw up fluff, after being one of my most outspoken critics. How about you? Do you purposely not see a water-way, too? Forget the lame excuses. You're on the public podium....

Gunn, what is your problem? You again are trying to hijack a discussion for your pet idea. It isn't the topic of this blog post and isn't relevant here. Please refrain from personal insults.

Gunn

3/8/2014 05:00:33 am

No, it's your problem. Everybody else was discussing "that forbidden subject" without any interruption from you. You could have said anything way back, but you chose to remain silent. Now you take Only Me's lame excuse in saying it's off-subject. You are biased, Jason. I caught you at it.

I'm glad to see you're open to the challenge. It seems there is a two-mile portage...which wouldn't be a problem...never was to Vikings, either, obviously. (Just a light jab.)

Term: Brule-St. Croix Portage (Historic Marker Erected 1962)

Definition:

Hwy. 53, 1.5 mi. S of Solon Springs, Douglas County

The Brule and St. Croix rivers provide the natural water highway between Lake Superior and the Upper Mississippi. Daniel Greysolon, Sieur du Lhut, in 1680 was the first white man to use this passage. Traveling from Prairie du Chien in 1766, Jonathan Carver was advised by his Chippewa guide not to ascend the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers because he lacked enough gifts for the numerous and unfriend­ly Sioux along that route. Carver's party then detoured up the Chippewa River to Lac Courte Oreilles, portaged to the Namekagon, traveled down stream to the St. Croix and up that river to the passage north of St. Croix Lake. The two-mile portage between the St. Croix and Brule was used by another exploration party led by Henry Schoolcraft August 6, 1832. One of Schoolcraft's companions recorded that the Brule was a brook of clear, cold water "filled with brook trout." The Brule still is one of the best trout streams in the United States.

Re-reading it, the portage may have been needed on a different, less direct route, so there may not have been a portage, depending on how you read it. But, a portage is no problem with small faerings (after-boats), or birch-bark canoes, whichever the case.

Only Me

3/8/2014 05:41:30 am

Thank you, Gunn, for illustrating my point so well.

As to the rest of your comments...how sophomoric. What's next? Toilet papering my house? Planting plastic forks in my lawn? Ringing my doorbell, then hiding in the bushes to giggle when I answer the door?

I'd ask you to grow up, but it's obvious I'd be setting the bar too high. I could suggest you make like Snagglepuss and exit, stage left...but, you've called it quits, only to return, more times than the U.S. economy has been in recession.

I won't pester you any more, but I just wanted you to see that these people who had a reputation for exploring and navigating inland water-ways in Europe had no problems getting around here either. I'm merely saying that they didn't have any problem getting to Runestone Hill via water-ways, which was their customary mode of travel back then. I even presented a photo-route of Chippewa River (MN, not WI), so one can see the flow of water directly across a few miles from Runestone Hill.

The KRS was put at Runestone Hill by people who got there by water-ways--that's all I'm saying here. The water-ways were even more important farther west, near the Whetstone River, where two of these inland water-ways converged. I'm saying that medieval Scandinavians knew of this convergence, and marked up the land there with an over-abundance of un-blasted stoneholes.

No need to respond, I'll leave you alone now. But at least you did look.

Gunn

3/8/2014 05:57:00 am

The above comment was for Jason, not this persistent trouble-maker, Only Me. Only Me, in my opinion, you have been the most abusive blogger to others here, myself included. You have a filthy mouth and a very bad spirit, in my opinion. You brought up the notion of being off-subject, which was the most current butt-in, attempting to create trouble. Instead, Jason has looked at a map, something you weren't willing to do. You seem like an evil person. Plus, why don't you mind your own business once in a while, instead of just striving to stir up trouble? Having fun, are you?

Only Me

3/8/2014 06:25:19 am

I've already seen your map. I've entertained your idea in past conversation. I've never dismissed it as mere fantasy. I only asked you to be cautious with the use of New Gotaland, as others have taken you to task over your views about the KRS and stoneholes.

Your opinions are you own, so you're welcome to them.

I didn't butt-in; you name-dropped me and I responded. Or have you already forgotten this: "Only Me, The Other J. Dan, Matt, Tara? Who will go counter to the host in this? Who will dare? Look at a map. See the truth. Look what Jason hath done to us! Apparently, he is purposely overlooking history! This is a form of bias...otherwise known as: close-mindedness." Before that, I *was* minding my own business.

Since you find my presence so troubling, leave me alone. Do your thing and I'll do mine.

Gunn

3/8/2014 06:33:45 am

Yeah, Only Me, you responded alright, with that purposely trouble-making suggestion about being off-subject, as a workable cue. You added that in, didn't you? We aren't all fools here. Bottom line is that you like to attack people and cause trouble, as in the severe case with Rev. Phil. How does one deal with a purposeful trouble-maker on a blog? Why isn't it that you don't finally stop harassing people here?

RLewis

3/8/2014 06:52:36 am

I really don't want to get involved with this issue - but I always wondered - if the boats are just canoes or other light vessels (i.e. not large ocean-going ships) - then why the need to mooring stones?

Gunn

3/8/2014 02:16:09 pm

Actually, this might be hopeless here.

Either you are extremely ignorant about stoneholes, or you have a warped sense of humor.

Clint Knapp

3/9/2014 01:31:31 am

I knew it would't be long before Gunn's latest absence wore off and we were right back to this crap again.

Gunn, consider if you will that the issue isn't with the stoneholes- it's with the presenter and the mode of presentation. Stop spamming Jason's blog with half-formed lunatic rants about whatever snippet of information fits your pet theory on any given day and put together a cohesive dissertation on your own site. It's not doing you or your Great Stonehole Argument any good to continue down this path.

When your M.O. is primarily to rant on another man's comment threads you can't expect anyone to have any sort of idea what you're talking about or to have kept up with a year's worth of length comments spread across a hundred topics that have nothing to do with it. If you want anyone to take you or your ideas seriously, you need a better means get your message across in a coherent manner.

Tara,
How did you, within 2 or 3 minutes, get access to an unpublished message (which you quote, exactly) sent to SC's blog that would not be published before his authentication Who are you? How do you get immediate access to an unauthorized and an published message?

Colin, your posts are off topic, apparently factually inaccurate, and in violation of my comments policy. Please refrain from further postings about this issue, or I will delete them.

Reply

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 05:17:28 am

Jason, so respect your decision. Never saw my post on SW blog, still not there, and never got any response you believe I got. Still confused at immediate (1 minute) reply by TJ to unpublished response. SW could never authorize it so fast but TJ intercepted it within a minute. Very Odd. .Good luck. Bye.

Colin, did you try refreshing your browser? Your comment is on SW's blog, where I and everyone else here read it. It's been their since early this morning.

Colin Hunt

3/8/2014 05:43:52 am

Comments off topic, factually inaccurate! Matter of interpretation. Wow! Do you actually read the posts, I am very, very moderate in my comments and challenge no less than others.. No matter, let the abusive people rule the site. I opt out. Reader? Not now.

Suffering from reading deficiency?.
I posted on March 8,2014 at 7:16 AM in response to your initial comment on March 8,2014 at 6:26 AM.You may call it "intercepting messages to WC's blog, even before they are authorized/publicized by SW" as long as you are incapable of doing the maths.As to the accusation of being Scott Wolter`s mole,ridicule doesn't kill.Consider yourself lucky.
Obviously you are not the sharpest tool in the box.This is precisely why I wanted to publicly dissociate myself from "debunkers" like yourself.

Reply

CFC

3/8/2014 04:59:07 am

This was posted by a lady (Ms. Morgan) on the HC AU face book fan page:
"I am a long time fan of the History Channel, but am alarmed by the marked decline in the quality of your programming. I'm embarrassed for you over the pseudo-science and reality show nonsense you choose to broadcast now. The withering ignorance of shows like Ancient Aliens, America Unearthed, Pawn Stars is contributing to the dumbing down of America, and is an embarrassment for your formerly relevant network. You have fallen into the hackneyed basic cable formula of lazy thinking, dumb and cheap programming. You show very little actual history on any of your channels anymore, which boggles the mind, because all you'd have to do is go into the archives of historically correct, decently researched programs you used to broadcast - you could repackage them at almost no cost. Today, I'm going to spend some time figuring out how to cut out the multiple pointless extra non-"History" Channels out of our cable package, and figure out how to get rid of the other basic cable garbage we're paying too much for. If I hear you get better, I will rush back. Until then, I'm really sorry that my former favorite channel has turned into such garbage."

Reply

J.A.D

3/8/2014 06:07:50 am

two thoughts about all things other than post-holes
and the KRS immediately above this humble new
posting. if the other arrowheads that have the same
shape as the hawaiian one found on the lip of a big
volcano are made of another material substance most
totally, and the ones from a similar type of obsidian
are flaked into a totally different shape, is this implying
that the greenish arrowhead with the yellow flakes is
less obviously mass produced, and we should also
take into concideration its shape AND its material???

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 06:45:02 am

Precisely, J.A.D. I made several Google searches and came up empty-handed on a similarly shaped spear point. I tried different search terms and looked at many, many images, but couldn't seem to come up with anything just like it. I found some small bird points from Oregon with a like SHAPE, of obsidian, but nothing as massive as that spear point.

I don't know how far-reaching trade was at the time the spear point may have been made, if possibly made in ancient or pre-Columbian times.

Does anyone know of an image of another spear point just like this one, of the same material, of the same size--whether authentic OR more recently created? Thanks.

Awesome images, Dan. Maybe they're more popular than we thought. It would be nice to compare some of these to the one found in Haleakala.

Gunn Sinclair

3/8/2014 02:07:58 pm

Dan, none of these images is anywhere close to the spear point in question. Rev. Phil and J.A.D and myself are correct in wanting to appraise the shape. I cannot so far find a spear point that looks like the one in question. Dan, study the one in question, then go back and see that you have found NOTHING...in how many seconds. It shows. And Only Me, awesome nonsense is more like it. No wonder people like Rev. Phil get exasperated here. Some people here don't want to be serious, except to seriously stir up trouble and nonsense.

Dan

3/8/2014 03:33:30 pm

"none of these images is anywhere close to the spear point in question."

This is the most ridiculous thing you've ever said in this forum, and that's saying a lot. I will feed you no more.

Mandalore

3/8/2014 10:16:33 am

People sure do get themselves worked up about things on here. While it provides some entertaining reading at times, it rarely seems productive.

Reply

Prone

3/8/2014 01:35:48 pm

When I read this blog post and saw how many comments there were, I thought "oh boy, I bet there is some serious and probably heated debate going on here about the authenticity of that spearhead, and the ethical issues surrounding how production handles their on-air talent"
Instead what I find is another selection of flamewars; Gunn finding any excuse to force his beloved Vikings into the conversation, Phil dodging questions and being difficult, and everyone else arguing with them and feeding it. It is a little disappointing.

One thing I would like to say though, since I can hardly lower the tone at this point, is that when Scott was getting really angry, cursing and complaining about NPS conspiracies; I really really hope the producers turned to him and said "Hey Scott, this isn't NOVA or Frontline, it is just entertainment. Lighten up!"

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 02:33:35 pm

Such a funny person! Prone, I looked real hard to see if you added anything to the conversation, but sadly, you didn't. Only criticisms against the usual suspects. It's too easy to pile on here, which apparently you are "prone" to do. One thing you got right though, was about people dodging questions...but you got the would-be dodgers confused. I think, probably, you could have just minded your own business here, too, especially since you didn't add anything but insults.

Reply

Prone

3/9/2014 08:36:25 am

I'm glad you enjoyed my joke, I feel like adding humor to the conversation (since it wasn't particularly mean spirited or insulting, just a good-natured jab at the Reverend's catchphrases) and maybe trying to lighten the mood a little wasn't a terrible thing to do, since things were and continue to be pretty combative.
Unfortunately; I am not knowledgeable enough in the subjects relevant to the actual blog post to be able to contribute much to the discussion and I think that my trying to do so would be pretty painfully amateurish and easy to pick apart, so I avoided it (unlike Mr Hunt, who seems to have made a right tit of himself). You know, 'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. If this were a blog post about UFOlogy then I would be in my element, but I'm not going to hijack the thread so I can talk about John Lear and animal mutilation (even if I really really want Jason to answer my questions about them).
Instead, I chose to express my disdain that you once again turned the debate to beating a horse which is already red with blood and death (another little joke for you since you seem to like them), and that the Reverend ducked much of the discussion to keep repeating "but JANET SIX said it MIGHT NOT be a FAKE... She's an ARCHAEOLOGIST, don't you know?", something which I found to be pretty disingenuous, and which I think betrays his agenda.
I didn't insult anyone, I didn't call anyone names or say anything mean or spiteful about them. If you would genuinely consider my above comment to be littered with insults, then I think that says more about your thin skin than my attitude. Okay, my tone wasn't exactly supportive of yourself and Phil, but attacking me for that is what is known as "tone policing", a relative of the ad hominem since you don't address what I say, simply the way I say it. I didn't intend to insult anyone or hurt their feelings, and so I am sorry if my comment about your "beloved Vikings" touched a nerve. It remains true that no matter how mean I was, the KRS had nothing to do with Polynesian contact with Mesoamerica (because it relates to European contact with North America), and I'm definitely not the only person who is sick to the back teeth of hearing about stoneholes.
You are very quick to jump on anyone who you perceive as violating the comment policy, but when Jason called you out for hijacking the discussion so you could wax lyrical about the KRS, you seemed to think that since everyone else was doing it you could too. Like a child, caught breaking the rules, who cries "but they STARTED IT!" I guess the guidelines only apply when you aren't on a personal crusade for truth? Like a blog post Batman, you break the law only in pursuit of justice.
I feel bad for making this post, as I am once again not adding anything to the discussion and I'm continuing to feed the trolls, but I thought I should explain myself in the face of accusations of "piling on" and parroting "criticism against the usual subjects".
I am sorry that I am contributing to the downward spiral of these comments, Jason, but at this point I feel like I am just pissing into an ocean of piss.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/8/2014 02:29:27 pm

LOL …

It IS amusing, to say the least, to have these blog posts earnestly slinging back*and*forth about a (purported) Hawaiian-Mexican obsidian point that NO ONE HERE HAS SEEN … and which is being *dismissed* as an obvious modern tourist trinket from a gift shop in Mexico -- even though NO ONE here has been able to provide a MATCH to any such objects …

I dunno ...

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 02:49:16 pm

Rev. Phil, we are dealing with people who, despite being close-minded, think they know all the answers.

We've seen here that those inland water-ways sure are scarey...and it's even more scarey that they lead to stoneholes!

"Quick, heads in the sand! These things cannot be seen! We're skeptics...this is scarey to us!"

So, fear gets in the way of history and geography truth. What armchair cowards.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/8/2014 02:56:37 pm

Gunn --

The "FUNNY" of it is that such hidebound self-confident closed minded-ness simply neatly ILLUSTRATES the very central point being made in the "America Unearthed" TV shows …

I dunno … Go Figure ...

Gunn

3/8/2014 03:27:58 pm

Right, speculation is BADLY needed, to fly into the face of over-zealous skepticism and close-mindedness. Wolter's programs help leave room to think, instead of automatically being close-minded, but they don't want anyone to be able to think outside of their presupposed, very correct box. Remember, they already know EVERYTHING, so there is no room for anyone like us to speculate about even slight possibilities. They think we are insulting them, I guess, for not being in lock-step.

Jonathan

3/8/2014 02:41:01 pm

I agree with Prone. I think it is time for a ruthless moderator to be the bad guy for Jason. Maybe the flame wars are good for internet traffic, but as a reader I am really sick of all the trolling, off-topic, and vitriolic posts. If Jason is not discussing your pet topic, then please start a discussion thread in his forum. For example, there is one blog post on stone holes, yet it is frequently brought up in blog comments for completely unrelated topics. There is not a single thread in the forum on stones holes. This is a problem, IMO. I can appreciate the fact that my own comments here are off topic. :)

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 02:53:23 pm

You agree with Prone, and you can take my same answer to Prone. Who cares what YOU think? What did YOU add? It's easy to pile on and just plain not mind your own business. If you added something, that would be different, but you added NOTHING but a stinky fly-over. Next time try quacking without dropping an unnecessary, stinky load.

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 03:19:15 pm

Jonathan, you have not seen a forum on stoneholes, correct. The proposition is too scarey. It's easier to simply dismiss them, as with any proposition involving far inland water-ways.

And actually, these issues are not off-subject, but have been carried forward from other recent blog-lines here because the issues continued to be ignored, as most following know. The issues are currently being ignored by all of the fearful skeptics here, including Jason. This is nothing new. All I'm pushing for is Jason to change his mind about far inland water-ways and possibly stoneholes, since the evidence is in and he is wrong on both accounts. Others here may not think this is important, but it is important. He has looked at a map, but not yet come to the point of admitting that there are viable inland water-ways to Runestone Hill. What's the problem?

The problem is one of continual evasion. The evasion has spilled over into yet another blog-line. If Jason is to be seen as unbiased, he needs to clean up his act. The overzealous fly-over skeptics visiting here should be patient and clam-up until he does so. Keep your poop to yourselves. Be patient. This is a difficult process....

Mandalore

3/8/2014 03:30:27 pm

Gunn,

Without waying in on your theories, I think Jonathon's suggestion is valid. This is not the place for the KRS, stoneholes, or waterways. I think you should start a forum discussion where you can lay put your evidence in its entirety and hopefully start a respectful discussion of the topic that everyone can benefit from. Little seems to be gained by pursuing it here in the comments of unrelated blot posts.

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 03:36:53 pm

With all due respect, why isn't Jason answering a simple question? He had opinions before, which turned out to be incorrect? I'm looking for accountability and non-bias, from a Professional Debunker. We are at the knitty-gritty, Ma'am, and have been here for a while....

Gunn

3/8/2014 03:49:40 pm

Mandalore, I detect a stubbornness, an unwillingness from Jason and others here to admit what is clear to see, even after being corrected on his earlier views. But the answer opens a Pandora's Box of unorthodox history, which is scarey. I'm asking Jason to do his job here, for the benefit of anyone seeking the truth. The issue here is: evasion and a lack of accountability to common sense, as in, look at a map.

Mandalore

3/8/2014 03:52:57 pm

So lay out your evidence and interpretation in the forum for all to see and ask Jason's opinion of it. Then it will be on display in one place for all to see so that you need not keep having to repeat yourself. Arguing in the comments likely isn't inspiring Jason to respond, but putting him off. This would be a step in the right direction so that things don't get more out of hand on either side.

New rules from on high aren't going to fix things in the comments. It is up to those who participate to elevate the discussion and make things better.

And who is the ma'am?

Gunn

3/8/2014 04:08:25 pm

Mandalore, I thought yours was a female moniker for some reason. Sorry.

Anyway, Jason has heard everything I've had to say countless times, as you know. He's viewed numerous comments and thread-lines I've had with others, so he knows full well all the pertinent details. The problem is that he voiced an opinion earlier which reflects negatively on my own research, but when he's pinned down, he's evasive about correcting an earlier held wrong view.

Anyone visiting here regularly has had the opportunity of seeing this evasiveness in action. Admitting that there is a water-way to Runestone Hill must be a big deal in his mind, and also in the minds of many of his supporters. He wants to preserve his own image of history, I guess, which includes blacklisting maps.

Out of curiosity, would anyone like to step forward and admit, for Jason, on on his behalf, that there is a water-way from the Atlantic Ocean to within a couple miles of Runestone Hill? It's funny no one has thought of doing this. Odd.

Mandalore

3/8/2014 04:27:24 pm

I'm not sure if the title of Mandalore is masculine or gender neutral, or whether there has ever been a female Mandalore. But that is a discussion for a very different website.

I urge you again to create a forum where you can synthesize your theories in an easily located place, but the decision is of course yours.

As for Jason's opinion, he is entitled to it based on his interpretation of the evidence. I understand thatyou think the evidence is clear, but not everyone will agree. This is not necessarily dogmatic blindness or willful ignorance, but can be a reasoned thought based on careful consideration. That is why I have always loved history; as long as one's interpretations are based on evidence it is possibly true. But we must be considerate that other theories exist without belittling those that prescribe to them. People resort to namecalling far too easily around here.

Maybe I will start a forum thread about the nature of historical 'truth' in the morning after I get some sleep.

Okay. Mandalore, if you wake up in the morning in a mood for research, perhaps you wouldn't mind checking out the facts concerning this inland waterway to Runestone Hill. This isn't an esoteric matter. It's easy to see and comment on after seeing. For starters, click on the arrow by my name, above. Then look at the map. I'll be so happy when the FIRST person admits to seeing a water-route to Runestone Hill. Poor Runestone Hill here. Perhaps you can help Jason out of his apparent fogginess. Please report back. When the fog lifts, maybe we'll see some of those stonehole rocks you're talking about!

Mandalore

3/9/2014 04:41:26 am

I see the pictures of the stone holes. A water route to the site may be possible, but you need to better present your theories in a nice map and write-up of the precise route along its entirety from the Atlantic to Runestone Hill. At present I am not convinced because I don't have the time to devote to research on my own part as you suggest and it is not cohesively presented in a synthesized discussion that pulls everything together in a clear manner. I would be happy to read such a thing, but I don't have the time (or the motivation as as this is outside of my area of interest) to do that myself. I would also suggest careful erudition concerning more mainstream theories. If you think they are wrong, it is up to you to demonstrate such a thing in favor of your ideas. You have a potentially interesting theory, so now mold that into an exhaustive historical argument.

Again, Jason is free to decide whatever he wishes, as we all are.

Gunn

3/9/2014 05:29:46 am

Well, I was hoping maybe you'd be the one to see the water-way. I've already laid everything out, to no avail. To Lake Superior is a given; beyond that, I have listed the rivers, in order, from Lake Superior.

Everyone wants to make this such a difficult task. Why? Again, it's not esoteric in any way. One simply looks at a map, follows my directions, and ends up at Runestone Hill. My point is that "some people from medieval Europe" acted upon prior knowledge, perhaps dipping into the Viking age, even, when they were exploring near Runestone Hill in 1362.

Seriously, why is this easy to see route so difficult to see? It's not the route inland that's the problem here, it's having the nerve to admit that a theory involving the authenticity of the KRS can be valid. The now-easily-recognized route to Runestone Hill from the Atlantic Ocean is a mapping reality, whether anyone here wants to admit it or not.

Most people here would prefer that there remains an invisible fence, blocking off any potential water-way to Runestone Hill. See, this is the scarey part, messing with 1492. People keep saying "so what, it doesn't change much." Is this an excuse to be blind, Mandalore?

My intention has been to show the feasibility of the medieval evidences up here, yes including multiple unblasted stoneholes, but people would prefer to install imaginary blockages on the river routes, as though this is the easiest way to make all the scarey likelihoods go away. You failed in a very simple test, Mandalore, after getting yourself involved, but at least your tone was appreciated.

The funny part of this whole thing is that there is an equally verifiable river route coming down from Hudson Bay. The Red River eventually goes clear down to Big Stone Lake area (Traverse), where one could pick up the beginning of the MN River and go a short ways to the Chippewa River, to then simply follow north to Runestone Hill.

Again, the pitiful thing about all this is that neither Jason, nor you, nor any of the other ardent skeptics here are even willing to check this out and report back. If this isn't purposeful close-mindedness, I don't know what is.

Mandalore

3/9/2014 05:57:57 am

Your defensiveness is not warranted in our discussion. I have not rejected your theories, only that I am not as yet convinced by them. I do not appreciate your using language such as 'failure' or 'pitiful'. Nor have I ever defended any 1492 date as some holy end-all-be-all.

Perhaps I need to specify precisely what I would like to know about your theory so that we can avoid misunderstandings. Your waterways are a possible travel route, I have already acknowledged that, but more information is needed. What precise rivers were used from step one in the Atlantic to Runestone Hill? I do not know the area and maps are insufficient to give a good sense of how feasible travel along them is. Where do those rivers connect and where were portages necessary? Are there good places to bivouac, find food, and locate clean water? What people lived in the area that could have provided information or resources? What distances were involved and what kind of travel times would have been involved in such a journey? When do these ways become difficult or impassable due to weather (such as icing over)? A Viking expedition travelling this way (or via the Hudson) only has a finite window when inland waterways or overland portages can be safely or pragmatically traversed. How well could a longboat move through these ways? How fast? What are the depths and currents like? Why is Runestone Hill preferable to other nearby places? This detailed information might tell us how fast they could have moved and by extension how far. In turn, this information could provide circumstantial evidence in support of your other evidence.

When I say that I do not have the time or interest in researching this topic, I mean these questions. Its a lot of work. I can tell that you are passionate about your theory and I would like to see it developed further with more research. It would be fun to travel the route yourself and document everything in a field expedition.

Mandalore

3/9/2014 06:57:25 am

I would also suggest doing some research into the nature of Viking exploration and settlement in Russia as a comparison.

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/8/2014 03:47:01 pm

*Somebody* … please …

Give us a photo of the (purported) Hawaiian-Mexican obsidian point (reportedly) found in the Haleakala crater ALONGSIDE a matching photo of a KNOWN tourist trinket obsidian point from a Mexican gift shop ...

Reply

Dan

3/8/2014 04:49:15 pm

This is the "spearhead" from the magazine photo alongside one random spearhead taken from an auction site on the web.
I used "Paint" and I have no idea how to work with one of these programs. I'm sure someone with more time and some skill at a better program could line them up, rotate them in the right direction and even out the lighting. Still, even this amateur mockup of something found on the web in ten seconds of searching makes it pretty obvious that the AU "spearhead" is a dime-a-dozen mexican trinket.

Again, Dan, this doesn't match either. One is broken off and the other is completely unlike the Hawaii one. Why do you keep doing this?

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/9/2014 06:00:55 am

Dan --

Thank you for your effort … Unfortunately, I was unable to see the photos, since "Photo Bucket" cam be accessed by "Members Only" …

Jonathan

3/8/2014 03:48:33 pm

Jason is not under any obligation to reply here or to respond to any theories we try to advance in the comments section. Why is the comments section of an unrelated blog post a better place to discuss stone holes than the forum where a focused discussion of stone holes could take place?

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 03:56:15 pm

Jonathan, Jason can answer a simple question. He can make the decision without your guidance. You, yourself, still haven't added anything except criticism here. Don't you get it...you haven't added anything? Why don't you just butt-out, like it's none of your business, which it isn't? Come back and comment on something meaningful some time. Anyone can pile on.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/8/2014 03:59:38 pm

Gunn --

Maybe the "piling on" is akin to the (unblasted) "blasting holes" that everybody just "'forgot' to blast" … ???

I guess, Rev. Phil. Anyway, I'm hitting the sack. It seems as though almost everyone here is wearing purposeful blinders when it comes down to actually seeking truth in history. The inland water-ways are real, the unblasted stoneholes are real, and the purposeful blindness here is real.

At least we've managed to reveal close-mindedness in action here. All I can say is, it's a good thing for shows like America Unearthed, and people like Scott Wolter! Ha! Ha! Good night.

Jonathan

3/8/2014 04:31:05 pm

I don't understand how it is unreasonable to suggest that off-topic discussions take place in the forum section of Jason's site.

J.A.D

3/8/2014 04:34:15 pm

i brought this up because Solutrean and Clovis do look alike.
finding another arrowhead in the same or similar material with
a near to identical shape indicates by who and when it was
knapped. something tighter than the "look" Clovis + Solutrean
points have gives us added info on the means of production.
My odds are 50/50 because i am torn between thinking it very
recent or way older. other objects weren't around it but it may
have been placed there in a ceremonial manner. this does not
rule out hippies, or something a hippie carefully made, but i may
be totally wrong. lumps of that obsidian would have been objects
with a significant worth and value in unmarked or unknapped form.

cal

3/8/2014 06:31:45 pm

Gunn, I have added nothing to your cause, but I am being put off to the notion of it with every post of yours I read.
And by the way, your little website is only pictures from your summer vacation. Show me some aerial photos with interpretations by experts that do that sort of stuff.
Thanks for your valuable time.

Gunn

3/9/2014 05:37:58 am

cal, like the others, you might do well to mind your own business, especially since your opinion doesn't add up. Why haven't we heard from you before? Simple...because you can't add anything, you can only pile on.

cal

3/9/2014 08:42:25 am

I read every word on your website and it seems as if you have a problem with everyone. The people at the park commemorating your pet project don't even match up to your idea of what may or may not have happened.
As for your map, it looks like one from an old road Atlas that my grandson has made cute little lines on.
Go somewhere else to rant your babble.
And yes you deserve to be "piled on" if you continue to hijack comments sections about other topics to put forth your point of view. What, is your website a ghost town? So you pop up here because you know that Jason's Blog is one that people read and comment on in numbers that your little vacation trip site could only dream about.
Crawl up in your little hole and leave everyone else alone.

Only Me

3/8/2014 04:33:20 pm

There's a wrestling term that applies to what's happening in this thread. It's called "cheap heat".

Here's how it works: a heel (bad guy) evokes a reaction from the crowd by insulting a specific babyface (hero), insulting the crowd itself, etc. The heel says something he *knows* will get a reaction, with very little effort on his part. Hence, "cheap heat".

This is what Gunn wants. His purpose is to disrupt the blog, through a predictable pattern of behavior:

a) insults/personal attacks
b) false accusations
c) thread jacking
d) crying foul at perceived violations of the comments policy from those commenters he dislikes, even as he flouts his own violations of the policy

It's all about the cheap heat. The easiest thing to do is ignore him.

Reply

Gunn

3/8/2014 04:41:25 pm

Funny, this heel-person sounds more like you. Good self-description, except you left out the title of "Trouble-maker."

Reply

Only Me

3/8/2014 04:46:32 pm

Cheeeeaaap heeeeaaat.

Reply

J.A.D

3/8/2014 04:46:29 pm

i looked at spearheads on this link that is like the one Dan provided, and the cover image. glaringly the base is different, and also the color, the 3 new ones are of a darker color. the lump of obsidian is
four bucks and is lower down on the page. even for a lump of it to
get to Hawaii before 1500 begs a question, i feel. interesting site...

http://www.greatsouth.net/item/N710/Spearhead

Reply

$4.oo lets you by a clever knapping session "fake" an artifact...

3/8/2014 04:51:33 pm

my point precisely!!!!

J.A.D

ps. --- however... the arrowhead
in question may be
centuries old

Reply

J.A.D

3/8/2014 05:03:09 pm

lumps or "chunks" of obsidian can be bartered or swapped.
if people from two cultures met before the year A.D 1400
and a slightly larger lump of blackish obsidian was swapped
for a greenish one with distinctive yellow flecks, this still
has us asking about contact and a trade route being in place.
a working of the chunk or lump is a different question, then.

http://www.greatsouth.net/item/M283/Obsidian_Chunks

Reply

even worse... lets rethink 1431 theories

3/8/2014 05:14:29 pm

lumps or chunks of obsidian might hint at Chinese voyages to the Americas and a stop-over in Hawaii where bartering or swapping of
objects facilitates trade let alone future voyages. unworked obsidian
implies a trade network, and i place the Chinese on the short list
after the intrepid Polynesians & all any prematurely bold Europeans
or even the peoples of North or South America. precisely knapped
arrowheads in a similar substance indicate a time and place i feel.

Reply

Seeker

3/8/2014 05:42:18 pm

Jason, thanks much for the strong follow up piece with more information from Dr. Six, possible explanations for provenance of the spearhead--and the truly unethical actions of the production staff in withholding information from SW in order to get a reaction--talk about a conspiracy...

The cameo appearance in this comments section by Will Yates was truly unbelievable and indefensible--his comment about withholding information not being a deception and comparing filming a friend opening a gift to lying to a show host to get him upset and *capture the genuineness* of his reaction was surreal. It only hurts the credibility of the show and its host to pull a stunt like that.

The response both you and Matt Mc gave to Mr. Yates was spot on. I can't imagine how upset SW was once he found out he'd been lied to--you should be able to trust the people with whom you work--especially when you're hosting a show about exposing the truth!

Like Jonathan, Prone (and many others who are reading the comments and probably afraid to weigh in for fear of attack), I found the blog post compelling and looked forward to some good discussion in the comments. I've read many insightful comments but have also had to skip large chunks which have nothing to do with the subject at hand or are just attacks on one another.

I'm surprised more people aren't concerned about or discussing the clear violation the production staff made which clearly undermines the show's premise.

Reply

Clint Knapp

3/9/2014 03:03:22 am

Withholding information may not be specifically lying, but it is definitely a breach of trust. I for one find it immensely telling of the whole show that the producers went ahead with the spearhead segment and continued to film it as though they had nothing at all to do with the situation just so they could get Wolter's "genuine reaction" on film.

I can't imagine it feels particularly great to go on national television ranting about conspiracies to hide the truth of history- a conspiracy which he purports to target him specifically- only to find out that the real conspiracy is between the guys on the other side of the camera.

Tara once said that she saw the show's producers as exploiting Wolter, and the mental illness she perceived in him, for profit. Psychiatric diagnoses left for those more qualified, I'm inclined to agree.

In the late sixties and early seventies we had "exploitation films". Mostly, these revolved buxom beauties who may or may not have ever had an acting class getting into a number of unusual situations in which they became tough heroines who got all the bad guys in the end.

Some think the "exploitation" angle comes from the women themselves being exploited for their sexuality, but the truth is they're called "exploitation films" because they were made dirt cheap in countries with no laws or regulation regarding film safety. The Philippines were particularly popular. Film makers could get away with anything. Why pay an industry professional stuntman and his supporting crew to make a safe stunt when you can pay any Filipino man on set a few bucks to throw himself off a guard tower for real?

Same thing with this show and Scott Wolter. Keeping him in the dark about what he's doing and how involved in it the producers themselves are is exactly the same exploitation as those Filipino stuntmen who died to make a few bucks on a Roger Corman jungle flick. It's willful abuse of one's employees, with a hint of "it's not illegal HERE" thrown in to sweeten the pot.

Clint.
Your reference to "exploitation movies" is extremely pertinent.Despite the mercantilistic aspect of the show,I came to believe that Scott Wolter is genuine & sincere about what he presents on his program.Unlike the Ancient Aliens charlatans,Wolter doesn't have the profile of someone desperate to "make it".He wouldn't risk his professional reputation for some 15 minutes of fame.Scott Wolter already had a career before hosting the American Unearthed program.I also feel he doesn't have control over the production & the format of the show.The America Unearthed producers & writers are exploiting Scott Wolter naiveté & enthusiasm.

Matt Mc

3/9/2014 06:18:06 am

Well said Tara, I fully agree with you.

I hope Wolter comes to see this in the long run. Like I mentioned earlier the FINDING BIGFOOT team has had similar problems with the production staff and they called them out on it. The talent and the production team them met and came to a civil solution. While it did not improve upon the show IMHO, it did give the cast more say in its presentation and as the cast saw it prevented them from losing their credibility in the bigfoot research community.

I do think Wolter can come to a similar kind of agreement with his producers and can help shape the show into something that presents the facts (or supposed facts) in a manner that comes across as less dramatic and more informational.

I think the show overall could become something that does give people a chance to think about things and how history has been presented to us in the past and will be presented in the future.

As critical as I am of the show, my criticisms have always been geared to how fast and loose the show plays it subjects and that is something that can change. Scott for the most part is new to the TV world and I think is rather naive as to how aggressive and manipulating it is. I just hope for him that he does take steps so that the what is presented on the show does not affect and hurt his real career.

The Other J.

3/11/2014 07:17:58 pm

This does make me wonder if Wolter had any response if and when he found out the producers withheld the information in order to manipulate his emotions and manufacture a staged response without his tacit knowledge. If that were me, my trust in the producers would have dropped precipitously.

Mandalore

3/9/2014 04:25:24 am

This seems to fit the standard operating procedures among 'reality' shows. The producers of those shows create false situations and drama beyond the supposed reality of the show in order to make things more interesting to draw in an audience. The shows on SpikeTV in particular make these fake reality shows, and it kind of seems like the producers of AU are following those examples. I guess controversial ideas and manufactured drama sells; it is just a show after all.

Reply

PNO TECH

3/9/2014 03:41:56 am

I have often wondered about the proccess of script writing for this show: does Mr Wolter have creative control over the final draft? This suggests not: http://mauifeed.com/headline/is-the-spearpoint-trevor-carter-and-bryan-axtell-found-in-haleakala-national-park-evidence-that-pre-contact-hawaiians-visited-south-america/
Note that I found this on Scott Wolter's blog this morning. AU is a tv show on a commercial channel: the primary purpose is to draw an audience so that advertisements may be presented to them.
I do wish that they could air something like, "No facts were harmed during shooting of this show", but, from what I've seen, that would not be a factual statement.

"Somewhere, another fact curled up in a ball and waited to die"- that's going to be my new sig line.
Kudos, Jason!

Scot

Reply

Matt Mc

3/9/2014 06:19:31 am

Wolter has stated in the past and recently on his blog that for some subjects that he knows well he has some input but many times he goes in blindly.

Reply

PNO TECH

3/9/2014 04:50:52 am

In the article above, Axtell says he cleaned the spear point with alcohol from his first aid kit. Anyone with actual experience care to explain how that might affect the scientific examination of it? He says that the cleaning will make dating difficult. I do not have the expertise to evaluate that claim.
Thanks,
Scot

Reply

Seeker

3/9/2014 09:52:43 am

Great question. I'm definitely no chemist but I wonder if use of alcohol on the spear point was so detrimental because it removed important evidence, impacted radiocarbon dating because alcohol contains carbon or something else entirely.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/9/2014 06:17:16 am

So is there any new information from Prof. Dr. Six … ???

Reply

Gunn

3/9/2014 08:41:15 am

Here's a link about age-testing obsidian. Apparently, it's tied in with radiocarbon dating and is relatively accurate. But, dog-gone-it, I still haven't been able to locate any huge spear points just like the one in Hawaii! The bases are always different. This must be a rare find!

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~kjvaughn/hydration.html

BTW, I decided to give up on revealing inland water-ways here. The subject matter seems to be too difficult for most to comprehend, plus people just don't care.

Basically, it's Jason leading other skeptics astray here and getting away with it. He voiced his erroneous opinion before but is now avoiding admitting that he was and still is wrong...unless he's changed his mind.

I thought it would be a simple matter of him wanting to clean up his act here, but I guess he's too embarrassed about being wrong. It's not that hard to look at maps and see that you were wrong, but he stubbornly doesn't want to do it. Yet he boldly voiced his wrong opinion before, but doesn't want to now admit that he was wrong about something. Why?

Because he wants to be correct 100% of the time, I guess to feed his ego. But history truth is history truth and the same can be said of geology, geography, topography, and water-ways. It's not a matter of figuring anything out; it's only a matter of being willing to take that public peek into Pandor's Box. But, it's a fearful thing, this "alternate history" that is true, including the OBVIOUS water-ways that I guess only Viking types can figure out. Go figure.

Reply

Clint Knapp

3/9/2014 11:48:40 am

Unfortunately, Gunn, you fail to see the point again. The issue isn't with the data or what it may or may not reveal, it's with the presentation, as I and others have been trying to drill into your head. If you want to be a rogue alternate-history buff with a grand vision of the world that's meant to rock our socks off and change everything you have to actually step up and do it with at least the same diligence as every other alternative and fringe "thinker" out there.

That involves putting things down into a coherent narrative in a single place- not the comments thread of a post on a blog that has nothing at all, even remotely, to do with your pet theory. Pay someone to make your website worth visiting, fill it to the brim with information in a logical and cohesive manner, maybe write a book about it or try to get in good with the internet radio crowd.

You spend a lot of time blaming Jason for your woes, but his comments thread is the only place you get any exposure- and that's exactly why you're doing this, is it not? If you want to play at alternate historian like your acknowledged influence, Scott Wolter, then do it right or shut up.

No one cares about your theory because no one can make any sense of a bunch of disjointed, rambling posts, and a website with a few pictures and some two-line quotes and copies of letters to newspaper editors.

Jason's not reviewing your claims because you're failing to present them in a manner at least up to par with that of the people whose claims he does review daily. You have to work for it if you want to be taken seriously, even in the fringe crowd.

To sum up for you, Clint, my problem here is having to deal with evasiveness, both from Jason and from all the others who are pretending to be too dull to see the water-way, as I presented. Any fairly intelligent person can easily see the routes I showed. Saying the routes as depicted isn't good enough is a cop-out. Jason is ignoring the direct question, even though he voiced earlier opinion...also, about stoneholes.

I can only say at this point that there is unethical behavior being shown here on this blog, but not from me. People here like to think they are representing truth in history, but this is a sad joke to some of those who visit here, read, and don't comment.

My comments draws flies to the flypaper, but only the ornery flies, it seems...those who like to pretend to be dull. This is even worse than actually being dull and sounding off, because it's a self-deception. People here keep saying, "But I can't quite see the water-ways," after Jason has said as much, leading many of his followers to purposeful blindness as well.

Isn't truth the goal? Then how can some people responding here ignore the truth? I mean, simply ignore it, like it will go away. Like, if the water-ways and stoneholes go away, they can't be true. Pretty shallow thinking.

Rules? Yes, Jason set rules here, which began to break down when he allowed all manner of abuse to come Rev. Phil's way. Again, ignoring a problem, like it will go away. Usually, Jason lets things go until he finds a suitable spot to "butt in" right after I've commented...though he will let actual verbal abuse go on against Rev. Phil without interjecting.

The reason I'm being persistent in this is because Jason likes to pretend like he has all the answers, yet when he's confronted with something contrary to his own cherished beliefs--and yet it's provable to be true, he cannot bring himself to admit that he was wrong. He publicly made an erroneous call, but can't now clean it up. He apparently wants to keep the imaginary blockages in place for river-ways, as though that might, what, stop the French, too?

I honestly don't get it...this reluctance to admit that Scandinavians easily found their way inland, yes, farther than most people would think...unless taking a few minutes to look into the matter.

This is unethical behavior on Jason's part, because he's supposed to be a very public Debunker, in search of History Truth. Yet he has found it convenient to not even care about obvious bias. This is a genuine problem for him, because he wants to represent History Truth. One cannot really represent History Truth wearing self-delusional blinders, which is much like imagining water-way blockages.

We have seen other obvious bias from Jason, too, specifically by trying to interject "white" racial tension into many issues, to the point of being ridiculous. Who doesn't know that someone who flings himself into the public eye can't be so obviously biased? I warned him about this before, that it can and will affect his perceived level of professionalism.

The bottom line is that Jason is not as qualified as he thinks he is, because of continual, obvious bias. If one doesn't mind being led astray regarding certain FACTS of history, or geography, then this is the place for you.

But back to the original bias, which brought many here in the first place: Against America Unearth's Scott Wolter. Your worst bias shows, Jason, in the way you repeatedly attack Scott Wolter. Anyone is welcome to look up what is expected of a "reviewer" and will soon enough learn that personal attacks reveal obvious bias, and are bogus for a good reviewer to involve himself in. Yet, Jason relishes in this.

In other words, Jason has less authority in what he says because he can't help attacking Wolter, cannot help seeing a white racist behind every tree, and because he cannot see real, actual water-ways. Yes, he is biased. Full circle back to a year ago here. Not much has changed. Suck it up, everybody.

Gunn, I can't drop everything on your whim to go looking into stone holes. You have a website; use it to present a compelling case. Better yet: If you want to prove that the water route you identified is viable, get in a boat and sail from L'Anse-aux-Meadows to Runestone Hill. Looking at a map won't allow me to conclude it's possible; I have no way to know the facts on the ground, which branches of the river are deep enough for a Viking ship, or which stretches might be too dangerous or impassible. It's not as simple as looking at lines on a map.

Nobody is correct 100% of the time, Gunn, and I resent you asserting that just because I'm not interested in your pet theory that somehow that translates into a raging ego. Even accepting your premise that there was a water route, that doesn't translate into proof that Norse (as opposed to Minoans, Phoenicians, Irish, Mayans, etc.) used it. You need to present a coherent thesis before asking people to evaluate it. All you have are a few assertions and a heap of speculation.

As I've repeatedly said, this whole discussion is off topic. Please don't discuss this any more in response to blog posts that have nothing to do with stone holes.

After all that, you seize on the word "Viking"? Amend it to fourteenth century Norse ship, or any other kind you'd like. The point is the same: You need to actually do the work to prove your idea, not expect other people to do it for you as some kind of challenge.

cal

3/10/2014 06:42:22 am

Gunn,
If you spent as much time on your own website as you do espousing your views on this comments section then your site might be more convincing to those who have visited it.
As it is, you come here and bully your way into a very different conversation. Just go to the proper forum and you might be treated differently.
I do however suspect that you are the type of person that will always find fault with others, so long as they don't fall in line completely with your point of view.
By the way, your THEORY of waterways may be correct, you just need to offer up more proof than the website that you promote. That and drop the vitriolic behavior.

Well, evidently you both missed the meaning and point about the key words being "Viking Ships."

Of course, the big joke is that inland rivers were not "sailed" by "ships" of any kind. What a red herring! On the open Great Lakes portion of the journey, yes, as evidenced by "The Griffon," which was assembled near Niagra Falls, if I remember correctly, and disappeared on it's maiden voyage from Green Bay. So yes, ships could be assembled and disassembled and used on the Great Lakes, by fur traders, or by Norsemen earlier.

However, a singular emphasis was put on "ships" and not at all on smaller watercraft that made the final fourteen-day trip from Lake Superior (some say Hudson Bay), to Runestone Hill. I recognize this as obfuscation. "Were the water-ways deep enough" is a nonsensical response to my "challenge" to recognize water-ways for what they are.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that the party of men ended up at Runestone Hill by following water-ways. Why is this recognition such a big deal...and threat...and so difficult to comprehend?

Here's the reason. I'll spell it out: It's because nearby water-ways from different Oceanic approaches merge precisely at multiple stonehole clusters in nearby SD, identifying medieval Europeans as the sojourners. This is the very real, inevitable problem of recognizing far inland water-ways. See, they will take one to the truth, where one can take a bath.... And who here doesn't need a nice bath?

It's funny for me to read here that people need everything more coherently proposed to understand something this simple. Just look at the water-way I presented, by clicking by my name. It's easy enough for my ten year old grandson to understand, with no problems. cal, you want me to offer up more proof? You sound just like Jason. How about you guys finally looking at some maps...simple enough in this Google age.

This water-way to Runestone Hill is easy to trace, and I listed all the rivers in this thread, up above, from Lake Superior. How is it that the French made it this far inland in the 1600's...as far as Minnesota, easily, but you fellows think the Scandinavians, known for inland water transport, couldn't have done the same thing? Oh, you need proof. Right, I forgot. Simple logic and simple maps won't do.

cal, I had been appealing to common sense, but you missed it entirely, though you did show, again, how difficult it is for you to mind your own business. Jason, just so you learn something from all this effort, "Viking Ships" don't sail on small rivers. You missed using a bit of common sense, yourself, in not being able to envision the watercraft likely used on such a journey. I kept appealing to common sense here, but didn't receive it. Everybody suddenly became moles, instead.

And what about the so-called "brainy" people here? Can't someone smart see that is was as easy for the proposed earlier Scandinavians to make the same journeys inland as the later French? What's the difference? Water too shallow? Red herrings?

But there is this difference of perception because it was a few hundred years earlier, putting it into a pre-Columbus time-frame. That's the big deal about inland water-ways here...they're like the earth bleeding forth a kind of serum which cannot be ingested here, where the simple truth is actively avoided. Yes, and this is an obvious form of bias, an unwillingness to see the history truth of valid inland water-ways.

cal

3/10/2014 04:12:44 pm

Gunn, If you look below I have contributed to the pertinent discussion on this particular comment thread. Also, if you read you see that I did indeed go to your website and see what your argument is based upon and if there were further references there for me to look up and possibly see things in the same light ad you do.
All you offer up is a map, not even an appropriate one as to the point you wish to make, that is scrawled on as to cover any waterways you might want the viewer to see.
Don't put it on anyone else's back to prove your point. Make a CLEAR and LOGICAL point and back it up with some of your own research.
Look at how Jason presents research and references before each review and try to do that.
Don't just get on here and rant like the village idiot hoping someone will do your legwork for you.
That said, I have as much right to comment on this thread as you do, so cut the crap. You act like this is your personal forum, well if so then have my comments deleted and posts from my ip address blocked.
Finally, if it matters, you are talking out of both sides of your behind.

cal, it's nice to see that you finally contributed something, besides not being able to mind your own business, and being so extremely DULL about researching inland water-ways. You make it sound like only a genius can see the water-ways after much research. My map I presented is plain and simple for my purpose of showing river-ways to Runestone Hill and to the convergence point of New Gotaland. I can't help it if you can't muster up enough ability to look at something so simple and "get it." This is elementary school level stuff. You and Jason just refuse to see something elementary and simple. This is a reflection on you guys, not me. Jason voiced an erroneous earlier viewpoint about water-ways, so he should be able to clean this up after looking at simple maps. It is his responsibility to the truth, which I am after here. Duh. I want truth from the History Truth-master, not someone like cal jumping in, not minding his own business, throwing up more fluff to cover simple truth about water-ways.

Some people just want to show up and start fling turds...I guess people like you, whom I consider a classic trouble-maker, pretty much on the order of Only Me. Who knows, maybe you are Only Me.
Anyway, you come across as someone not able to mind his own business, and just another know-it-all...even though you can't seem to see clear water-ways. That's because you are ornery and purposeful in being blindly stubborn, kind of like Jason suggesting the water may not have been deep enough for Scandinavians, but just fine for later French. Who are the DULL people here, or at least pretending to be? Don't bother me any more, you purposeful pest.

cal

3/11/2014 04:26:53 am

Gunn, at risk of being banned from this blog...
Go screw yourself!! You can come on here and denigrate whomever you please at will. If we were at a conference your bravery would be much less. So go hide behind your keyboard you f#! $ ING imbecile.

Matt Mc

3/11/2014 04:29:50 am

Can we please stop the dead horse from running.

Nothing positive is coming from this.

Gunn

3/11/2014 07:41:15 am

Okay, cal, I think you finally got my point, after I had to front you off for coming here to deliver nothing but bad vibes, at first. Maybe you'll re-consider your words in the future when you feel like butting into another person's gig. You should put your passion into exploring inland water-ways.

Matt, the dead horse is named "Cal McNutt Strut"...running 20 to 1 to lose.

Seeker

3/9/2014 11:21:05 am

Thanks for the article, Gunn!

And (also to PNO TECH), I stumbled across two other (fairly straightforward) articles about Obsidian Hydration Dating:

https://sites.google.com/site/datingarchaelogy/home/obsidian-hydration. Here's a larger image of the spear points or blades pictured in this second article: http://worldart.sjsu.edu/VieO8731?sid=7975&x=37854468

As others have indicated, it's tough to find examples of other large obsidian points--unless they're for sale... Check out this one, believed to be genuine and used for ceremonial purposes--scroll down to see second photo: http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2013/05/archaeologists-to-resume-dig-in-upper.html#.Uxzip_ldVqV

All of this actually raised a red flag for me. The spear point in question is by one of the discover's estimates *...heavy, big. It weighs at least a quarter pound." A heavy obsidian blade makes sense for ceremonial purpose or as a handheld weapon or tool--but not so much for a thrown spear. If the piece is genuine, perhaps it was used for a hand-held spear?

But this piece seems to be a bit of a hybrid--big, heavy--and a spear point. Big, heavy spear points (versus blades) seem uncommon--does this all give more indication that the piece isn't right i.e. the piece is a fake?

Here's a final site (just for entertainment value) to see the process of a chunk of obsidian knapped into a point--this link worked just fine earlier, but if you have problems, try again; I think something is going on with their site: http://www.pugetsoundknappers.com/how_to/Percussion%20Knapping.html

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/9/2014 11:53:58 am

Not all "hafted" chipped stone tools and weapons were for "throwing" or "thrusting" … Some were used as "knives," especially for processing food ...

Reply

Seeker

3/9/2014 04:55:45 pm

Yes. I'd hoped I covered that / made that part of the consideration with my comment *A heavy obsidian blade makes sense for ceremonial purpose or as a handheld weapon or tool--but not so much for a thrown spear.* In other words, the mention of the word "tool."

If this piece was meant to be a blade or knife, why shape it like a spear point? So my point is--this piece seems too big and heavy for a spear point and the wrong shape for a blade. It's odd.

Wow--thank you. Beautiful piece. It was great to do a split screen and compare them side by side. The one in the museum seems thinner, more balanced and beautifully shaped. It isn't difficult to imagine it being attached to a spear. I wonder how heavy it is.

Identical in typology to collection item #775 but in green gold sheen obsidian.

cal

3/9/2014 11:27:25 am

Just found this as a counterpoint to the relative accuracy of hydration as a method of dating obsidian.http://web.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no7/clock.htm
It specifically mentions pachuca as a reference for their testing methodology.

Reply

PNO TECH

3/10/2014 03:00:30 am

Thanks for the links, Seeker & Cal. If I understand correctly, glass(obsidian) has such a low porosity that a few minutes of exposure to alcohol *should* not affect the dating of the spearhead. Alcohol has a much lower surface tension than water which means that it will be absorbed more easily into porous material (I know a little about this from my day job). IF the spearhead IS 100s of years old, the water wick-depth(my terms), will be much deeper than a brief exposure to alcohol would yield. If only a few years old, the alcohol > could< possibly quickly wick to a fairly shallow depth. So, if old: should be fine: if new; may be a problem.
Not hard facts here: just my conclusion.
Thanks,
Scot

Reply

cal

3/11/2014 07:54:53 am

Just want to apologize for my diarrhea of the keyboard to everyone on this blog. I was not my intention to drop to the level of certain other loose gunns.
I will no longer take the bait from people that are looking only to argue or have others do their homework for them.
Go Big Olé

Reply

Sick of Stoneholes

3/11/2014 08:05:06 am

No need to apologize, but yes don't engage the troll.

Reply

Gunn

3/11/2014 08:26:20 am

Which begs the question, why did you? Just practicing being a hypocrite? You must be a secret stonehole freak....

(Big Ole Sucks Templar toes to get them clean.)

william smith

3/11/2014 01:18:40 pm

The arrow head found does not prove anything other than the stupidity of Scott Wolter thinking that property found on state or federal land belongs to the finder. Even items found on private property in most states does not belong to the finder unless the property owner has given written permission.
As for the water rout to the KRS and its relation to other items or sites that may fall into the ancient land called Vinland one has to understand the treaty between Spain and Portugal in 1494. (The east boundary of Vinland is the New Port Tower, the west boundary is 370 leagues west of this tower. Both markers represent longitudinal lines from pole to pole as explained in the treaty. The Newport Tower was built in 1472 by J. Corte real as a fish smoke house. During the same period and group the KRS was placed at its current position by Pothorst and Pinning.

Reply

Rev. Phil Gotsch

3/11/2014 03:27:07 pm

The Common Law includes "the Law of Treasure Trove," commonly known also as "finders, keepers; losers, weepers" …

That couple in California, e.g., who recently found that HUGE treasure trove of gold coins would OWN their discovery even if it had been made on some other person's property …

See, presumably, IF you knew that there was a cache of valuables buried under the old oak tree in the back forty, YOU would have dug it up long ago … But you obviously DIDN'T know it was there, and so suffered no HARM when it was discovered by someone ELSE … Now, IF your property was fenced and clearly marked "No Trespassing," THEN you would have a Cause of Action for the TRESPASSING offense, but the treasure would still belong to its discoverer ...

Reply

Matt Mc

3/12/2014 12:59:46 am

The Treasure Trove law is different in many state in the US, so one would have to look at a given state law.

Federal Treasure Trove law states:

"Finder of treasure trove, which is defined as coin, gold, silver plate, bullion, or similar articles hidden for safe-keeping and forgotten, or remaining undiscovered by reason of death of person who hid them, is entitled thereto as AGAINST owner of land where treasure trove is found and all the world save the true owner, in absence of statute, but owner is entitled to property, other than treasure trove embedded in his soil. It is the HIDING and not the losing or abandon-ing of property which gives it its character of treasure trove. (Groover vs. Tippins, 179 S.E. 634, 635, 51 Ga. App. 47.)"

And if found on public land it remains the property of the state unless one has treasure hunting permit, not all state have treasure hunting permits however so again state treasure trove laws should be checking.

One of the big things in the case of shipwrecks is while the treasure is found in international waters it can still belongs to the Country of origin, that is why these big finds lead to years of lawsuits before it is determined who finds the treasure.

Near me on the beaches of the eastern shore in MD you have to have a permit to use metal detectors on the beach finding stuff tourist and beachgoers left behind if you are looking for stuff on public beaches and you have to report all finds. If you are on private property everything you find is the property of the property owner. Then there is the issue of historical value. My house is in the area of several small battles that occurred during the revolutionary to civil war. When my neighbor was working on his backyard he found a bunch of bullets and some remains of weapons. The state seized the property because of its historical value, he was given a payout by the state for the items found and is credited as finder in the public record but he was subject to a six months of having a dig in his backyard that he himself did not have access to.

So the whole process of treasure hunting or finding treasure is complicated and confusing and different states, counties, and countries have so many various and different laws it can be really really confusing.

william smith

3/12/2014 04:52:08 am

Thanks Phil and Matt for your input. The state to state laws are different, their are also laws that are Federal that apply to National Parks or Federal government property. The laws in Canada are also different because much of the private property is actually a 99 year lease. In all cases it is best to understand the law and have written permission on any land you look for artifacts or treasure. If the arrow head in this article was found in a park it may be subject to state and federal laws. Each year for the last 8 years I have worked for the township in my area in Ohio at an old ice factory site which was in operation 150 years ago. We do this one week dig for the public that wants to participate and offer merit badge work for the scouts that join the group. Each year we are required to provide a letter of intent as well as all participating parties. We also are required to sign a paper that indicates all finds are the property of the township and will be maintained by the local historical society. Their are also native American laws passed in the 1990s that protect burial sites that may be discovered. If you find a bone for example, the dig is halted until properly identified and recorded by qualified state personnel before continuing. The big problem I see with America Unearthed is they never encourage their viewers to go through the proper process of research. The metal detector group make it clear that their findings are in most cases property of the owner.

Reply

Armothe

3/12/2014 06:21:43 am

Jason, thanks for taking the time to present the publication as well as follow up with Dr. Six. These are the type of stories I find the most helpful and even enjoyable.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.